Yeah, I'll stick with the oncologists take on it over some internet only studies, since they studied peer reviewed science for years and practiced longer on exactly this subject, and they all said trying to cure cancer with veganism instead of surgery is insanity, as was wasting away while refusing to eat enough recommend quality proteins. That part is a no brainer, but it only contributed to his death from cancer and likely helped it spread faster, it didn't directly kill him.

Edit:besides, I'm not going to take my time up to fully discredit this guy again. Once was enough. Even you admitted he was full of it when he claimed studies showed eating meat is as dangerous as chain smoking, he's not worth another debunking....he's a fraud.

I mean, I guess you don't really need to understand how the brain works to do surgery on it. Just get the tumor out, or cut the appropriate pathways to stop epilepsy spreads, etc.

His lack of understanding in neuroscience is still pretty astonishing. Combining the ignorance with the god complex is more frightening.

This is what happens when you let people with so much plastic surgery it looks like they have a perpetual Clint Eastwood squint, read out an award letter.

Is this show available on the Canadian version of Netflix? I go to the website and it's about as clear as mud, and intuitive as brain surgery.

If it and the Marvel shows are available, I might try it.


Edit- Never mind, found a listing on Finder.com. Looks like there's almost nothing on the overrated Netflix Canada. Sad.

Not sure how to put this in the context of the video, but...

My gf was diagnosed with breast cancer a few months back and has just finished chemo... now prepping for surgery, radio, and hormone therapy. I know that's a world apart from chronic leukemia - like flu and aids are both viruses - but her attitude was/is:
"Ok, I'm sick, I've got to go through some crap and I'll be better than I am now, even if I'm not fully cured. There's no point raging out about the big fight, or raging inwardly about how unfair it is. I've just got to do some stuff.

"Sick or not, going to work is annoying but necessary. When I need to take care of my child or bf it can be annoying, but necessary. There's no promise that life is easy, but you just do what you can."

I think it's great that people have the strength of character to rage against the disease and not give in to depression, but I will forever be astounded and impressed by my gf's incredibly practical "meh" attitude.

She's Russian. They're a strange people with the weirdest and most practical dark sense of humour, but it's amazing how practical that whole side is.

Is there someone better educated on the physiological and psychological science of this that can explain why gender transition at that age is not child abuse?

Because from everything I understand about how complicated and frequently fraught with remorse and confusion that issue is for adults....how in the name of fuck can someone that young be mature enough to make that kind of life changing decision? (or indeed have it made for them)

Gender dysphoria is usually only diagnosed in adulthood and usually requires years of psychotherapy and adoption of the desired gender role before any respectable doctor in the UK would allow the transformative process of hormone therapy to begin. (let alone reassignment surgery)

The suicide rate for transitioned people is about 40% I'm told. This appears to mostly be a combination of depression brought on by using the idea of transition to avoid other underlying emotional problems and/or remorse in later years.

None of this is to say people should not transition. There is plenty of evidence to support many a diagnosis of dysphoria and many a success story. But the thing those happy transitions seem to have in common is a very through and mature understanding of themselves.

i.e. things a child is incapable of doing when their mind and personality are still developing.

IDK, the very idea deeply concerns me. Is she actually happy transitioned? Or has she had that idea re-enforced by her parents and such?

I have this hypothetical vision of them panicking at their little boy playing with dolls and tea sets and finding solace in the idea that they are just the wrong gender, instead of being "odd".

I know how silly that sounds, but especially in the south of the USA, gender transition is sometimes considered more socially acceptable than homosexuality and/or being an effeminate male (or so some people in the trans community tell me).

Am I just behind the times on this one? Seems like there would have to be some pretty fucking spectacular medical science to back it up where children that young are concerned...

RIP Greg Lake

I just had to lay on the sofa tonight in the dark with some *quality earphones listening to my original vinyl copy of Brain Salad Surgery.

*ban

Plastic Surgery
posted by plasticsurgeryva 1 hour 36 minutes ago • 1 view
Dr. Arturo Valdez offers world-renowned plastic surgeon in Mexico: We can repair and reconstruct damaged tissue and skin to restore normal function or appearance. For more details, visit at http://drarturovaldez.com/

Ahh, so you were lying. You did have time.

From your response it's clear you don't know much about medicine.

"If you don't provide all the services required of a hospital, you don't get to call yourself a fucking hospital. "

No. You do get to call yourself a hospital. Most hospitals don't offer all medical services. Even major hospitals. You don't get to choose what is and isn't a hospital.

"There's a big bloody difference between "not equipped" and "unwilling"."

Sort of. It's a chicken and egg situation that has an order to it.

Most private hospitals are unwilling to provide non-profit services and are therefore not equipped to provide them. You won't find hospitals with the skills (i.e. doctors and nurses able to perform the procedure) and equipment (which is almost always purpose specific in medicine) and not the willingness to do the procedure. Catholic hospitals won't have either of those necessary requirements for most of the disputed procedures.

"And it's a bit fucking rich to bring up false equivalencies when you just compared unavailability of potential life-saving medical treatment to someone whinging over not getting a big mac at kfc."

No, mine was an appropriate analogy in regards to asking for a service or product that a company does not provide. In this case a Big Mac at KFC.

'"Really? They "articulate the truth"... as I said before, this is self-evidently complete and utter fucking bullshit.'

I can't say it's bullshit, but it is irrelevant.

'Yes, "inconvenient" is exactly the right word for a woman who is probably in the middle of the worst day of her life.
I mean, she might end up "inconveniently" dead, but hey, we wouldn't want to stop catholics telling other people how to live, would we?'

You're wrong. It is only an inconvenience. It sucks to be transferred to a different hospital but in general it has no adverse medical outcome on the patient. If the patient is critical the hospital will do what they can (which will be limited because they don't have the skills or equipment for that service) before transferring the patient. Just like one thousand and one other non-life-threatening and life-threatening procedures that most hospitals don't treat. Leaving the patient in place at that hospital carries a higher adverse risk than transferring them to an appropriate facility.

'And here we come to strawman of all strawmen. The problem is NOT that a woman needs a "direct abortion", it's that she may a surgical procedure that kills the child inadvertently. And this isn't theoretical, women have died from this.'

Not a strawman. You've given one example in a tabloid paper of a single woman who died from septacaemia, a week after a procedure. Unless you can show a conclusive coroner's report showing that the delay in removing the foetus (i.e. waiting until it was dead) was the cause, and not the 1000% more likely cause of infection during or after the surgery, then you don't even have that one example. And this sort of sepsis is just as likely from doing the same procedure with a live foetus. The procedure is pretty much the same. And even with one example, that's not statistically relevant. Do you have a study published in a reputable medical journal?

"The fundamental point is that religion has no place in medicine. If a patient wishes to refuse certain treatments because of their beliefs, well, they're an idiot, but it's their choice to be an idiot."

These hospitals have a mission statement based on their beliefs but they are practicing state of the art medicine. Based on their beliefs they don't offer all services , but this is no different than any other small hospital who limits their services. There are no statistically relevant adverse medical outcomes for anyone from this situation.

"But a hospital doesn't get to refuse treatment based on some bronze-age belief. If the treatment is legal in its jurisdiction and they have the capability to provide it, they must provide it. Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service on religious grounds ("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")"

You're confusing you're belief of "shouldn't" with "doesn't". They can and should limit their services to what they want to offer as a hospital. The same as every public hospital does. And no, if the procedure is legal they do not have to provide it. This is true for public and private hospitals.

You seem to be sorely missing this basic vital understanding that all hospitals are limited in capacity and don't offer all services. If you go to the largest hospital near me (one of two major hospitals near me) and need emergency obstetrics, you will be shipped off to the other major hospital. That's how it works. If you go to one of many dozens of smaller private hospitals and ask for a,b, or c and they only offer x, y or z, then you're going to end up going to a different hospital.

The catholic hospital is practicing conscientious objection and passively practicing this (yes, passively, they're happy for you to go elsewhere). You want to force (that's the best word) all medical personal to bend to your will and don't accept worldviews that don't coincide with yours. Bigotry at it's finest.

'("I am religiously opposed to treating gay people or blacks!!")'
FFS: Evidence of hospitals doing this please. Not an individual doctor. Hospitals.

'As you said yourself "If you don't like it, go work somewhere else".'

You're saying "if you don't like my personal rules, then go find a different industry". Democracies a bitch when you don't get what you want. You're going to have to live with the fact that your way is just your opinion and nothing else.

You're getting pretty boring pretty quickly. I doubt I'll bother anymore with you, it's readily apparent that you're not going to learn any time soon.

Laser surgery, people. It is the way of the future.

Glasses can go fuck themselves.

Yes, he's way off base IMO. For instance, the "head nod tremor" he mentions is CLEARLY not a tremor, it's a deliberate head nod. Tremors are uncontrollable, randomly timed spastic shaking, not slow, deliberate, large movements. We would have seen them during the debates, or any speech, and they would be clearly non deliberate movements.
What you would expect to see is uncontrolled hand/arm tremors, almost certain in someone who has Parkinson's that would make her legs weak and/or cause falling. Even M. J. Fox still walks around without help publicly.
My mother was diagnosed less than a year ago, and she has constant hand tremors, but she still walks miles daily with no leg weakness, even after spinal surgery. I get that it presents differently in different people, but his observations and conclusions are ridiculous based on my experience.
The very idea that he might publicly diagnose her based on the video evidence he provided is almost malpractice, and is certainly biased.
I wonder what he says about Trumps Emperor Palpatine eyes? Surely they're an indicator of something much worse than Parkinson's.

Depends on the surgery. You don't need a specialist to do your acute appendectomy or cholecystectomy, but you DO need a specialist to do your knee replacement or ICA aneurysm clipping.

Also, I assume the risk reductions presented are relative - e.g. if mortality from a non-specialist surgeon procedure is 5% and a specialist surgeon mortality has a 4% risk, the relative risk reduction is 20% (absolute risk reduction is only 1%), which sounds really high and may be statistically significant, but in the real-world does not matter all that much. This would be called statistically significant, but likely not clinically significant.

Went and watched a few of these on Youtube. I get frustrated when a guy like this with genuine comedic talent and decent production values, gets a few thousand hits, and a list of celebrities that got fat after bad plastic surgery gets millions...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Are you sure? "Tiny Tim visited my bedside while I was deeply sedated" seems like just the kind of thing I would experience post-surgery.

He visited me in the hospital when I was a kid getting my adenoids removed. I don't remember it though because I had just gotten out of surgery.